when the central issue in the case was the credibility of the eyewitnesses rather than their capacity to observe. See Lee v. State, 107 Nev. 507, 509, 813 P.2d 1010, 1011 (1991) (holding that eyewitness identification instructions "might be called for" in certain circumstances, but need not be given where the strength of an identification was overwhelming).

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. See Nay, 123 Nev. at 330, 167 P.3d at 433 (reviewing a district court's refusal to give a jury instruction for an abuse of discretion).' Having considered Reed's contentions and concluded that no relief is warranted, we ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED.

Saitta

Gibbons Pickering CC: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge Special Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'We decline Reed's request to overrule our prior decisions regarding specific eyewitness identification instructions,

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A